Presented at Shri Rajshwa Tribunal in Kathmandu

Appeal letter

Baglung District Baglung Na.Pa. Ward no. 4 located J. A. on behalf of J. V. of Tata Projects Limited.
Dhanusha District Janakpur U.P.M.N.P. under the authority of Ward no. 4 years of residence 34 Ram
Babu Karna's......................................... ..........................................1

against

Mr. Middle Level Taxpayer's Office, Babarmahal, Kathmandu............................................1

Case: Advance Tax (A.Y. 2075/076)

The said opponent Mr. Middle Level Taxpayer Office, Babarmahal, Kathmandu. Issued in the case of
this appellant company for 2075/076. No. 774 Dated 2080/02/30th Advance Tax Assessment Order
and the decision sheet issued in that regard, after receiving the said basis and reasons for
assessment of tax are contrary to the law and the valid principles of the law, the reason is not
satisfied, Mr. Internal Revenue Department to cancel it. Regarding the administrative review before
Mr. Internal Revenue Department, Lazimpat, the decision made on 2080/06/12 and received on
2080/10/22 should be appealed within 35 days from the date of receipt. As per Section 223 of the
Procedure, 2074, we have been given a 15-day extension, so we have filed an appeal letter within the
extension period.

1. Since the facts of the dispute and the conduct of the decision during the administrative review will
be known from the relevant Missile, it has not been repeated. So get the missile shot.

2. We request as follows that the decision sheet issued by Mr. Internal Revenue Department is
flawed and that the advance tax deduction determination order mentioned in the order and decision
sheet issued by the opposition office is firstly approved.

Item no. 3 Regarding the fact that the taxpayer has to deduct advance tax at the rate of 15 percent,
but only deducts the advance tax at the rate of 1.5 percent:

a. Advance tax deduction determination order issued by the opposition office, item no. 3 and point
of administrative review decision no. 1 in "This taxpayer has this A.V. On the amount paid for the
service received from an unregistered person outside Nepal, reverse VAT has also been filed as per
Section 8(3) of the VAT Act, 2052, but the Income Tax Act, 2058 on the payment of the said service
fee. According to Section 88, if the tax payer is required to deduct advance tax at the rate of 15% and
file it, since the taxpayer has only filed the advance tax deduction at the rate of 1.5%, the fee as per
Section 120(a) of the Income Tax Act, 2058, shall be charged on the remaining amount to be filed. It
seems that the tax has been determined by calculating the interest as per section 119 of the Act.

b. In relation to that, the appellant company contracted with a person who is not registered outside
of Nepal for the purpose of doing its special work, and for receiving that service, A. The amount has
been paid as per the terms of the contract. It is clear that the payment was made to a non-resident
person as per the VAT Act, 2052, reverse VAT has also been filed on the purchase of goods or services
taken from outside Nepal. Section 88(1) of the Income Tax Act, 2058 provides that when a resident
person pays interest, natural resources, rent, royalty, service charge, commission, sales bonus,
retirement payment and any other consideration and retirement payment, fifteen percent of the
total payment amount is made in Nepal. This company has not paid any amount under the said legal
provision as there is a provision that the rate should be taxed. Since the amount paid by this
company is a payment under the contract, it is not attractive as per the legal provisions, the tax
assessment which states that it should be taxed at the rate of 15% is erroneous.

c. When the appellant company paid the amount under the presented heading, 1.5 percent advance
tax was filed as per Section 89(1) of the Income Tax Act, 2058. Section 89(1) stipulates that when a
resident person pays an amount of more than fifty thousand rupees for a contract or agreement, the
total amount of the payment must be taxed at the rate of 1.5%. However, A. Sub-section 3(a) of
section 89 provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), five percent tax shall
be withheld on payments made by a resident person to a non-resident person under any contract or
agreement. Since this company has paid the amount through an agreement with an unregistered
company outside of Nepal, it has to be taxed at 5% as per Section 89(3) and not at 1.5% as per
Section 89(1), but as per Section 89(3) and not as per Section 88(1). According to Section 88(1), 15
percent tax has been determined for replying to the opposition office saying that it should be
maintained without any hearing from the opposition office.

d. The Income Tax Act, 2058 provides that taxes should be determined on an equitable basis. As this
appellant company has made advance tax deduction as per 89(1) and requested that the tax
deduction be maintained under 89(3) due to error in the said tax deduction, the opposition office
should make the amendment according to the above, and the appellant company's contention is not
met without doing so. ) and not according to 88(1) but without logical and just refutation of who is it,
the tax assessment is invalid as the tax assessment is done with malicious intent to make the
company bear more tax liability on a preconceived basis. Therefore, according to the contention of
this appellant, the tax assessment should be corrected in accordance with Section 88(1) with 15% tax
deduction and only 5% tax deduction should be maintained as per Section 89(3).

3. Therefore, on the basis of the facts discussed above, the law and the valid theory propounded by
the court, the advance tax deduction determination order, the decision paper and the administrative
review order upholding the same, which was not recognizing the advance tax deducted by this
taxpayer, are flawed and justice should be done.

4. A.W. In 2075/076 towards advance tax Rs. 1,70,30,482.00 half of Rs. 85,15,241.00 to be deposited
as a bond, during the administrative review, Rs. 42,95,000.00 has been filed as a bond and for the
purpose of filing an appeal in the Hon'ble Revenue Tribunal, the amount to be Rs. 42,58,000.00 to be
filed while Rs. 42,58,000.00 deposited bank voucher submitted with this application and present to
register appeal letter.

5. The present appeal falls within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under Section 116(1) of the Income
Tax Act, 2058.

6. Attached copies of documents and evidence:

a. Advance tax deduction assessment order dated 2080/02/30

b. Decision sheet dated 2080/02/30 issued by Mr. Internal Revenue Office

c. Decision sheet dated 2080/06/12 issued by Mr. Internal Revenue Department

d. Compensation for understanding the letter

e. Bank Voucher

f. Authority

is. In Waresna
7. The information written in it is true, if it is found to be a lie, the money will be paid according to
the law.

the appellant

He or Rambabu Karna

In this regard, every day of the month of 2080